State v. Dudley

• Decision Date: 05 July 1912
• Citation: 149 S.W. 449
• Parties: STATE v. DUDLEY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

149 S.W. 449

STATE v. DUDLEY.

Supreme Court of Missouri. Division No. 2.

July 5, 1912.

1. LARCENY (§ 31)—INFORMATION—VALUE OF PROPERTY.

The failure of an information charging larceny of separate articles to state the value of each does not invalidate it, when the aggregate value is stated.

2. JURY (§ 99) — COMPETENCY OF JURORS KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS.

A juror, who has talked with the prosecuting witness about the arrest of accused, but who has heard none of the facts as to his guilt or innocence, and who has formed no opinion, is a competent juror.

3. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 703)—TRIAL—REMARKS OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY.

The remarks of the prosecuting attorney, in his opening statement, that accused forfeited his bond at the previous term of court, and a requisition was issued for him, was not improper, since this tended to show flight, which is evidence of guilt.

4. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 730)—TRIAL—REMARKS OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY.

Where, on objection being made to alleged improper remarks of the prosecuting attorney, the jury were instructed to disregard them, and no exception was taken nor request made that the prosecuting attorney be rebuked, there was no error.

5. WITNESSES (§ 269) — CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION RELEVANCY TO DIRECT EXAMINATION.

On a trial for larceny of a buggy, which accused testified he bought from a person whom he met on the highway, where it was claimed that horses' tracks were found in front of the buggy shed of the prosecuting witness the morning following the larceny, cross-examination of accused as to the kind of horses he was driving, and how they were shod, was germane to his direct examination.

6. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 778)—INSTRUCTIONS—PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.

The refusal of an instruction on the presumption of innocence is not reversible error, where the jury is fully instructed on the subject of reasonable doubt.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dunklin County; W. S. C. Walker, Judge.

William Dudley was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the circuit court of Dunklin county, and sentenced to two years in the penitentiary, and has appealed.

The information charged him with the larceny of "one buggy and one set of leather harness, both of the value of one hundred dollars," on October 8, 1910. He was living on a farm near Senath, in Dunklin county. His father lived near Manila, Ark., about 16 miles south of Senath.

The defendant had purchased 80 acres of unimproved land, covered with timber and brush, near his father's, and had cleared away a place to build a house. He had bought lumber in Senath, and hauled it in a wagon to his farm. He made a trip with a load of lumber, leaving Senath about 8 o'clock on Saturday night, October 8, 1910, and passed by the buggy shed of Ben Vardell, which was on the side of the road, about an eighth of a mile from Vardell's house. The evidence tended to show that there were tracks of horses, similar to the tracks of defendant's horses, in front of the buggy shed the next morning, and tending to show that defendant's team had stopped there, and that the buggy tracks indicated that it had been tied behind the wagon ; and the tracks were such as to show that the buggy had in that way been taken to defendant's place in Arkansas. It was found in his possession, about 60 rods from the public road, behind some bushes. Vardell's harness was in the buggy. The collar was missing.

The defendant testified: "That he did not take prosecuting witness' buggy, but that on the Sunday morning (October 9, 1910), at the state line, or about a mile and a half beyond; he had bought it from a man named Carter, whom he met about daylight, for the sum of $35. " That he had known Carter off and on for three years, as his business was that of trading horses. He described Carter as a small man with red hair. On cross-examination, appellant testified that he had left his home at Senath on Saturday night about 8 o'clock, going straight south, passing the prosecuting witness' home and buggy shed, making one continuous trip from the time he left home until he bought the buggy the next morning. That the place where he bought the buggy was about 13 miles from his home; and that it took him from 8 o'clock the night before to travel from Senath to 1¾ miles below the state line. That his horses were between 12 and 14 hands high, were shod with calks ('corks') behind and no toes. That he drove on from the place where he bought the buggy to his place, where he unloaded the lumber, and came up to his father's about 9 or 10 or 11 o'clock a. m. That it was some 10 or 12 miles from the place where he bought the buggy to the place where he unloaded the lumber, 4 miles south of Manila. On being asked why he did not take the buggy on down to where he unloaded the lumber, he answered, because there were logs scattered around there, until he could not get the buggy out of the road, and where he left the...